Public Lands Historic View of U.S. Land Disposal Development of Agencies managing Federal Lands Development of Policies Governing Key Federal Agencies Alpine Lakes as a case Study Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Plan as a case study
Key Questions to Consider Regarding Management of Public Lands 1. Whose interests should be considered? How? Local residents versus distant interested parties? 2. How to consider present values versus those of future generations? 3. Should “people” be polled? Or just volunteer their input? 4. Should planning be bottoms up or tops down?
Key Questions to Consider Regarding Management of Public Lands, continued 5. Should Congress step in even more, or has it gone too far in prescribing management? 6. Should lands be managed for cost-effectiveness or should non-economic values be the primary basis for management (e.g. an ecosystem perspective)? 7. How should irreversabilties be considered? 8? What other values should be considered?
Public Domain Relative to U.S. Land Area Historically Millions of Acres
Division of the Public Domain Thousands of Acres
Division of the Public Domain, Percentage by State “Vacant” today is mostly managed by BLM
Appropriation of the Public Domain, to 1923 Thousands of Acres
Land Under Federal Management –p. 54 Non-federal Lands
An Historic Perspective Closing of the Frontier The Teddy Roosevelt Era of Conservation Creation of the “National Systems:” USFS and NPS More modern concepts: Wilderness National Recreation Areas National Scenic Areas National Wild and Scenic Rivers
U.S. Forest Service: Key Management Directives Organic Act of 1897 Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 Resources Planning Act of 1974 National Forest Timber Management Act of 1976 Wilderness Act of 1964 Clinton’s “Rule Making “ for Roadless Areas
National Parks Separate mandate for each Park General concept: Visitor use AND preserve the values related to classification. Conflicts in management concept Current attempts by NPS to balance management goals w/visitor use
BLM Lands - Largely Idaho and Oregon Grazing by cattle & sheep a common use Timber found on some of these lands (Mostly O&C lands) Strong recreational values An agency reluctant to embrace Wilderness, ecosystem approaches.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 The result of pressures from environmentalists from the 1930’s. Fought bitterly by agencies and industries Ordered reviews by federal agencies of lands suitable for Wilderness RARE I and RARE II Failure of Executive Branch Agencies to Propose Wilderness Omnibus Wilderness Bills for WA & OR; not yet for ID or MT
Old Growth Forest In Olympic National Forest 1940 1988 Source: Wilderness Society
Road Network Olympic NationalForest 1988 Source: Wilderness Society
The Fight Over Old Growth Timberlands (Outside Wilderness) Environmental Group Anger over failure of USFS (primarily) to classify lands leads to suits resulting in the Dwyer decision The Clinton Forest Summit The Clinton Forest Plan And Clinton’s “rule” for National Forest roadless land…lands not classified but still in the “roadless” inventory - Bush & other attempts to undo this “rule.” Reaffirmed by Obama Administration
Senator Dan Evans sponsored additions to the Wilderness system in Washington and Oregon in 1984 The Alpine Lakes was the subject of separate legislation in 1976
Tan – roadless areas where roads can be constructed Brown – roadless areas where roads cannot be built Black – areas recommended for Wilderness in Forest Plans
An Example of The Political Tussle in The Congress And Public Land Management
The Clinton • administration’s • attempt to • resolve • management • conflicts in • Northwest • National Forests • Partially implemented • Still controversial
National Parks Public Lands: Generalized Allowable Uses
Special Cases: Where Congressional Mandates Break Down Two Directions: Judicial and Legislative Examples: (Results of Congressional Action) Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area Hells Canyon National Recreation Area with a Wilderness Core Alpine Lakes Management Act North Cascades Complex: Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area Court Actions have usually led to Executive Actions or Legislation
Symbols of Changing Values towards Timber • Federal Lands Programs • State Lands Programs • Regulations on Private Timberland Management & Purchases of Private Timberlands • Ecosystem Concerns (Salmon; Interior Ecosystem Programs)
Conflicts over logging by USFS led to this study. Study Team appointed by President Kennedy In 1963. Composed of: Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Their Representatives, And a Fifth Member, Who Essentially Arbitrated the Study. It can be a symbol of changes in values towards timber.
National Park Service: Two National Parks, National Recreation Area, and Expansion Of Mt. Rainier N.P. Wilderness in Alpine Lakes And Pasayten
U.S. Forest Service: No transfer of Jurisdiction to National Park Service Wilderness in North Cascades, Alpine Lakes, Mt. Aix, and Recreation Areas
Study Team Recommendations: North Cascades National Park Wilderness in Pasayten, Alpine Lakes, Mt. Aix. Mt. Baker Recreation Area (Most passed by Congress in 1967)
Changing Values Toward State Trust Lands Jointly funded by State Legislature and Northwest Ecosystem Alliance
February 2004 proposal By Cascade Land Conservancy To protect 600,000 Acres of Cascade Foothills Timberland Endorsed by County Executives in early March 2004
Cascade Checkerboard Project: Purchasing the Northern Pacific Railroad Land Grant At a price infinitely above what they paid for it!
The Shift from Extraction to Consumption With spending on goods and services in rural communities to support consumption of timbered landscapes, especially on public lands.
Following slides are from this recent USFS document
Recreation Trends Source: USFS RPA Assessment